Construction of the proposed K148 road, in Gauteng, has been halted after NT55 Investments founder Francois Nortjé secured a High Court interdict, with the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport (GDRT) now appealing the ruling amid an ongoing legal challenge over the lawfulness of environmental approvals for the project.

Nortjé has opposed the K148 road because its approved alignment cuts through land earmarked for the Port of Gauteng, a privately led inland logistics and industrial development promoted by NT55 Investments.

He has stated that the road would sterilise critical portions of the site, disrupt the planned configuration of logistics, warehousing and intermodal infrastructure, and materially undermine the economic viability of the project.

According to Nortjé, the alignment was approved without proper consideration of existing and planned land uses, resulting in direct interference with NT55 Investments’ long-term development rights.

The appeal against the interdict, which prevents construction from proceeding, is scheduled to be heard in the Gauteng High Court on February 17.

The interdict forms part of a broader application by Nortjé and NT55 Investments seeking a judicial review of the environmental approval process that enabled the K148 project to move forward.

The legal dispute centres on environmental authorisations granted by the Gauteng Department of Environmental Affairs to the GDRT for the road, which is planned to run from the TotalEnergies filling station on the N3 southwards to an area north of the Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve.

Nortjé argues that the approvals process was procedurally and legally flawed and failed to properly address significant environmental risks.

In April 2025, Gauteng High Court Judge Bashier Valley, presiding in the Johannesburg Division, dismissed an application by Nortjé and NT55 Investments to set aside the environmental-impact assessment record of decision. An appeal against that judgment is set down for February 3 and 4.

According to Nortjé, the approved road alignment enters a sensitive wetland ecosystem that contains five Red Data bird species, as well as important watercourses and environmental buffer zones. He says the environmental safeguards originally proposed for the area were substantially reduced during the approvals process.

“There are material inconsistencies and omissions in the approvals process. In the base environmental application for the land development, environmental specialists appointed by the developer of that land originally recommended a 200 m buffer around the wetland due to its ecological importance and sensitivity.

“This was inexplicably reduced to 30 m by officials in the Department of Environmental Affairs in the development’s environmental application approval in 2012,” Nortjé said on January 28.

The GDRT submitted an environmental application in 2015 to build the K148 road through the wetland area. However, Nortjé stated that the resulting record of decision contained conflicting conditions.

One condition approved the full application, while another refused development on the floodplain. Findings in the decision confirmed a 30 m buffer from the wetland boundary based on environmental sensitivity.

After Nortjé launched his interdict application, the department applied in 2020 to amend the record of decision, adding seven properties that had been omitted from the original application. When the amended record of decision was issued in January 2021, conditions and findings relating to wetland sensitivity and the buffer zone were removed, despite no application being made for those removals and without public participation.

Nortjé added that the review application also raised technical and legal issues concerning compliance with transport and environmental legislation. He argued that the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act prohibited environmental approvals where preliminary road designs had already been gazetted, noting that the K148 preliminary design was gazetted in the early 2000s.

He also contended that environmental reports failed to scope a sewerage treatment plant over which the road would be built and did not identify that the proposed road crosses the Transnet petroleum pipeline between Heidelberg and Alberton.

When these concerns were raised during the review process, the then Gauteng Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development MEC Parks Tau stated in an answering affidavit filed in June 2022 that “the intention was, from the outset, to authorise the construction for the whole section of this provincial road, and in relation thereto, for the specific listed activities to commence”.

Nortjé said this statement confirmed that approval of the full road alignment was predetermined, despite environmental sensitivities identified during the assessment process.

“The environmental impact of this proposed road has been clearly articulated and is significant. Yet the Department of Environmental Affairs appears to have supported a process that falls short of both environmental law and administrative justice,” Nortjé alleged.

NT55 Investments emphasised that the legal action is not aimed at stopping development entirely but at ensuring that statutory requirements are met. Nortjé has also pointed to the appointment of Gauteng Environment MEC Ewan Botha in 2025, stating that the MEC has a legal duty to enforce environmental legislation and protect sensitive ecosystems.

“Our position is simple: infrastructure must be built within the law. There are statutory steps that remain outstanding and cannot be bypassed,” Nortjé asserted.

According to NT55 Investments, these outstanding steps include additional environmental approvals under the National Environmental Management Act, as well as water-use licences linked to construction within the wetland and the relocation of the sewerage plant. The company also stated that the road proclamation covers 15 properties, not 14, and that approvals and water licences were not applied for in respect of one of those properties.

Despite these unresolved legal and regulatory issues, the GDRT is proceeding with its appeal against the interdict, with the outcome expected to determine whether construction of the K148 road may resume.